Sustainable%20Painting%20Operations%20for%20the%20Total%20Army

1
Sustainable Painting Operations for the Total Army
Presented at Joint Services Environmental
Management Conference Exhibition April 14, 2005

• Mr. Patrick Taylor
• Dr. Daniel Verdonik
• Hughes Associates, Inc.

2
Outline

• Approach
• Risk Mitigation
• Program Areas
• De-Painting
• Rubber to Metal Bonding
• CARC and Other Paints
• Solvents / Cleaners / Thinners
• Sealants, Adhesives Miscellaneous Coatings
• Munitions Coatings
• Implementation
• Conclusion

3
Two Parts of the Equation
Provide Solutions
Get Funding
4
Questions

• What Are the Bad Actors?
• Which Ones Are Easy and Which Are Hard?
• Will the Alternatives End Up Costing More than
  the Controls?
• Are there Hidden Implementation Costs to the PMs?
• Is this Approach Going to Fail and Force Me to
  Install the Controls Anyway?

5
Answers

• What Are the Bad Actors?
• Over 500 Suspected (Based on MMPP/PPP)
• Site Visits, Detailed Databases in Hand
• Which Ones Are Easy and Which Are Hard?
• Easy De-Painting, Non-Munitions Coatings
  Sealants
• Hard Solvents, Munitions Coatings
• Potential Alternatives Identified
• Will the Alternatives End Up Costing More than
  the Controls?
• NO
• Are there Hidden Implementation Costs to the PMs?
• Cost is Major Driver in Downselects
• Picture Looks Good Overall PMs Will Be Involved
• Is this Approach Going to Fail and Force Me to
  Install the Controls Anyway?
• Our Track Record Says NO!

6
Program Areas
Process Area Bad Actors Alternatives Identified Total Cost
De-Painting 1 18 XXX
Rubber to Metal Bonding 2 3 XXX
CARC and Other Paints 22 25 XXX
Solvents / Cleaners / Thinners 100 350 XXX
Sealants, Adhesives Misc. Coatings 400 100 XXX
Munitions Coatings 33 33 XXX
Implementation PEO/PM Support XXXX
7
Mitigating Risk

• RDECs Developed Original Program Plans and
  Estimates
• Collected Data from Army Industrial Base
  Facilities
• Identified the Bad Actors, How Much, Where, on
  What
• Performed Industrial Base Operational Analyses
• Prioritized Bad Actors Easy to Hard
• Identified Opportunities for EPA Negotiations
• Performed Trade Studies
• Analyzed COTS, GOTS, and the Gaps
• Estimated Costs of Alternatives and Alternative
  Approaches
• Prepared Roadmaps to Implementation (by
  Industrial Site and by Commodity)
• Risk Mitigation Plan
• Verified RDEC Program Plans and Estimates
• Work with Vendors Suppliers
• Negotiations with EPA
• RDEC Involvement, PM Implementation
• No Basic Research or Applied Research

8
De-Painting

• Bad Actors 1
• Performed at Depots and Troop Installations
• Advanced Technology Development FY03-FY06
• Trade Study Identified 34 Potential Alternatives
• Selected 18 for Performance Evaluation
• Coordinate Depot Implementation
• Technology Demonstration at ANAD
• Demonstration / Validation FY06-FY08
• Performed at Three Sites CCAD, LEAD, and ANAD
• Coordinate PM Approval
• Operations Maintenance
• 24 Specifications / Documents Identified
• SOPs, TMs, DMWRs, etc. Will be Modified
• ANAD High Volume Dip Tank
• Two Approaches for ANAD
• Alternative Materials Higher Risk
• Housekeeping and Dip Tank Changes Low Risk
• No Cost Trade-Off Both Options have Zero Net
  Cost
• Reduced Material Costs More than Cover Changes

5 Army Usage 15 VOHAPs
9
Rubber to Metal Bonding

• Bad Actors 2
• Performed Only at RRAD
• Advanced Technology Development FY06
• Reformulate 2 Existing Adhesives Change
  Solvents
• Evaluate 3 COTS Alternatives
• Coordinate RRAD Implementation
• Demonstration / Validation FY06-FY07
• Conduct Qualification / Validation Testing
• Support PEO GCS and PEO CSCSS Approval
• Operations Maintenance
• 3 Specifications and 5 DMWRs/SOPs
• Cost Trade-Off
• Scrubber Capital Investment Annual Maintenance
• Alternative COTS Materials Capital Investment
  Higher Annual Material Cost
• Reformulated Materials No Cost Difference

10
CARC and Other Paints

• Bad Actors 22
• Performed Everywhere Except Ammo Plants
• Aerosols Expect to be Exempted
• CARC Family 9 Specifications No Cost
• Re-Formulated CARC has No Cost Changes
• New CARC More Durable, More Expensive (20/ GL)
• PM Can Choose Best Option
• Non-CARC 13 Specifications
• Advanced Technology Development FY03-FY06
• Re-Formulate 5 and Evaluate 20 COTS
• Coordinate Depot Implementation
• Demonstration / Validation FY06FY08
• Downselect and DEM/VAL 13 at Depots
• DEM/VAL CARC at 3 Remaining Depots
• Coordinate PM Approvals
• Operations Maintenance
• 13 Specifications
• Cost Trade-off
• No Performance Gains Expect Comparable Cost

45 Army Usage 40 VOHAPs
11
Solvents / Cleaners / Thinners

• Bad Actors 100
• Performed Everywhere
• Trade Study Identified 350 Potential Alternatives
  with 33 Solvent, 19 Cleaner, and 12 Thinner
  Specifications)
• Advanced Technology Development FY03-FY06
• Joint Service Solvent Substitution Methodology
• Sharing Costs
• Evaluate 40 Downselect to 8 for DEM/VAL
• Demonstration / Validation FY06-FY08
• DEM/VAL at LEAD, CCAD, ANAD, and TYAD
• Coordinate PM Approval
• Transition through TM to Field
• Operations Maintenance
• Revise 3 Specifications, Develop 1 New
  Specification
• Cancel / Inactivate for Army Coating Use 61
  Specifications
• Cost Trade-Off
• CCAD Experience 1M to 2M per Year (Aerospace
  Rule)
• Requires Process Relocations
• New Solvents Generally Cost More
• Cost Validated During Downselect

20 Army Usage 40 VOHAPs
12
Sealants, Adhesives Misc. Coatings

• Bad Actors 400 out of 1500
• Many Low Use Expect to be Exempted
• Many Small Container Sizes Expect to be
  Exempted
• Performed Everywhere
• Advanced Technology Development FY04-FY07
• ASTM Test Standard
• Evaluate 100 materials
• Downselect 60 to 75 for DEM/VAL
• Demonstration / Validation FY06FY08
• Qualification Less Complicated and Smaller Scale
• DEM/VAL Up to 75 Materials
• PM Approval Expected for 400 Current Materials
• Operations Maintenance
• 25 Specification Changes Anticipated
• Cost Trade-off
• Requires Process Relocations
• New Materials Generally Cost More
• Cost Validated During Downselect

30 Army Usage 5 VOHAPs
13
Munition Coatings

• Bad Actors 33
• Performed at All Plants except 1
• Joint Service Requirements Investigating Shared
  Cost
• Delayed Compliance Date for Munitions
• Clean Air Act Emissions Reductions in Other Areas
• Good Performance Demonstrated by the Army in
  Exceeding Reductions Gained by Aerospace,
  Shipbuilding NESHAPs
• EPA Working with Us This Program Shows
  Commitment
• Ammunition Coatings Drivers Throughput Costs
• Changes Require Round Qualifications
• GOCO / AAP Implementation is Intricate
• Analyses Identified 33 Different Coatings at AAPs
• Advanced Technology Development FY04-FY09
• 33 Reformulations and Laboratory Validations
• Demonstration / Validation FY06-FY10
• 30 Round Qualifications
• Operations Maintenance FY06-FY11
• 33 Specification Revisions
• Drawing / TDP Changes
• Coordinating PEO Ammo IB Approval

14
Implementation

• Operations Maintenance funds FY06-FY11
• Tied Directly to Non-Munition Areas
• Non-Specification Document / TDP Changes
• 99 TMs TBs Identified
• Commodity Management
• NSNs
• Prevent Re-Introduction of Bad Actors
• Reduce Recordkeeping Burden and Costs
• RDTE Management Support FY06-FY09
• Provide Direct Support to PMs Depots for
  Implementation
• Annual Management Oversight
• Coordination with EPA

15
Program Areas
Usage
VOHAP Emissions
Alternatives Identified
Bad Actors
Process Area
5
15
18
1
De-Painting
45
40
25
22
CARC and Other Paints
20
40
350
100
Solvents / Cleaners / Thinners
16
Without ANAD Methylene Chloride
Usage
VOHAP Emissions
Alternatives Identified
Bad Actors
Process Area
50
45
25
22
CARC and Other Paints
20
50
350
100
Solvents / Cleaners / Thinners
17
Bottom Line

• Compliance-Driven Option Install and Operate
  Controls
• XXXM
• Pollution Prevention Option Reformulate, Qualify
  Implement Alternatives
• XXM